HI!!! I would like to focus your attention on something someone told me some time ago...
You know, there are many theories that try to explain how Pyramids were built... Personally, I think that all these theories - if are not true at all - can be in some way explained...
But there is a theory that I think to be more absurd than the others; that's to say: the bricks used to build the Pyramids should be flown and they had assumed the position they have!! RIDICULOUS!!!!!

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 amPosts:574Location: The palace of Tutness!

There was a special on this on the Discovery channel--I forget the name, though--and this Egyptologist wanted to prove the hypothesis that the ancient Egyptians used wind power to not only build pyramids, but also raise obelisks and construct other monuments and facilities. They did this test on raising an obelisk using a wooden pole, linen sheets that were used as "sails", and tried to raise it. They finally succeeded after 7 attempts, but the obelisk fell after 17 seconds of standing upright. So the idea that they used windpower is rather farfetched, if you ask me, so you're right to say that, Hatshepsut, it does seem ridculous. ^_^ Hehe.

I saw something similar to that Discovery Channel special - perhaps it was the same one?

It took place somewhere in SouthWestern America in a desert - and was headed by some woman doctor. I remember her inspiration was of the big wings that are sometimes found in glyphs, over pyramid and obelisk structures.

I wonder how they did actually do it, it's got to be something so simple you'd kick yourself!

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 amPosts:574Location: The palace of Tutness!

Unas wrote:

I saw something similar to that Discovery Channel special - perhaps it was the same one?

It took place somewhere in SouthWestern America in a desert - and was headed by some woman doctor. I remember her inspiration was of the big wings that are sometimes found in glyphs, over pyramid and obelisk structures.

I wonder how they did actually do it, it's got to be something so simple you'd kick yourself!

Yeah, Unas, I saw the same exact one!! ^_^ So you know what I'm talking about! That's a coincidence! Hehe...And you're right, it would've been so complexly simple, you'd just...fall over...and THEN kick yourself afterwards!!

It's funny that I came across this topic you folks are discussing because a visitor at our museum today was telling me all about this exact same television special!

He asked me if I thought it was credible. I told him it certainly was not.

It was absolutely not likely to have been used in any fashion in building pyramids. Were those ancient builders supposed to stand around and wait for the right wind speed to blow from the right direction every time a stone was to be placed? I think not.

In any form of construction in ancient Egypt this "wind power" theory just comes across as nonsense. For another thing, this woman evidently was using block-and-tackle in her experiment, and nothing of the sort even existed in Egypt at that time. They didn't even have pulleys.

It's an interesting concept, you can't deny that. But anyone can come up with fantastic notions and theories--that doesn't make them credible. It doesn't even make them realistic as explanations.

The simple use of good-old manpower was all the Egyptians needed. They had plenty of it, and they had honed their construction skills to an expert level that the modern engineers of today roundly admire.

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 amPosts:574Location: The palace of Tutness!

Psusennes I is absolutely correct. The ancient Egyptians had something to strive for, and judging by thier monuments, thier gods really inspired them to do great and wonderful things. And it's not just in building, but many other aspects as well. ^_^

I have a new theory regarding the construction of the pyramids. If a theory is to stand up to scrutiny by the experts it should have at least some supporting evidence or a working knowledge by the person putting forward his ideas. I recently had correspondence with an Egyptologist regarding my theory she said it contained some golden nuggets of an idea but could not come to terms with the idea that the ankh , flail, septet and crook where just tools?
Her response was to say they were religious symbols. I replied and suggested to her that the cross that Jesus died on was a religious symbol? She agreed and said yes the cross is a religious symbol. I then said yes it is today but 2000 years ago it was a device for killing people and an advertising board saying if you don’t conform you will end up nailed to it. So what is now was not then!! Yes my theory revolves around hieroglyphs, I think have been misinterpreted. The theory ties in with writings of Herodotus regarding many machines. The hieroglyphs Djed, ankh flail septet and crook are tools to raise the building blocks. So convinced I was onto something I built a working model see it at www.djed.co.uk click the video link.

And dedication to their Gods. That I think was the main reason for their success, and we really lack it in the modern era.

That's a good point, especially when you consider that more so than most other periods of ancient Egypt, in the Old Kingdom pharaoh was considered god. The people felt a vested interest in erecting these massive tombs because, by all accounts, they literally believed that it was necessary to see pharaoh safely into his afterlife if the world was to go on existing. Even in his eternal afterlife, pharaoh would see to the safety and prosperity of his people.

And I certainly agree with the sentiment of your post. Whether you agree or disagree with the consequences of it, our modern society is becoming more and more secular as science and logic replace the divine.

Quote:

Yes my theory revolves around hieroglyphs, I think have been misinterpreted. The theory ties in with writings of Herodotus regarding many machines. The hieroglyphs Djed, ankh flail septet and crook are tools to raise the building blocks.

(Bold emphasis mine.)I like your creative and imaginative way of thought. I mean not to offend, but I cannot agree with your interpretation. I am glad you shared it with us, though. Except for the ankh, there is little mystery about what these glyphs represent. The flail is simply a fly whisk and the crook a shepherd's cane, two royal symbols adopted from the nature-based and agrarian roots of the Egyptian civilization. The djed came first from a very old ceremony (certainly predynastic in origin) for which there is ample textual evidence dating all the way back to the Old Kingdom: "the raising of the djed." This was a tree with its branches lopped off that was ritually lifted upright as part of a royal affirmation ceremony going back to the first days of Memphis; it may have developed into one of the rituals carried out at the heb-sed festival. The djed pillar was first associated with Sokar, the patron deity of the Memphite necropolis (Saqqara), and later became associated with Ptah, the creator deity of the Memphite region. Later still--and how most people of today recognize it--the djed pillar came to represent the backbone of Osiris, and therefore strength and stability.

The ankh is not so clearcut. The most logical theories are that it represents a sandal strap or (the one I personally favor) a mirror in its case. Every time I see the old bronze mirrors in our museum's Egyptian collection, I think of the ankh. I think it's more than coincidence. Many, many other theories have been expressed about the origin of the ankh symbol, some of them quite good and some of them so far out in left field that they can be disregarded.

When I study such things and am presented with an interesting theory like yours, I must return always to the evidence at hand. I'm pretty conservative that way. I feel compelled to follow what the evidence tells us, like a detective investigating a criminal case. So in that light, I stick with conventional theories most of the time.

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 amPosts:574Location: The palace of Tutness!

kmt_sesh wrote:

When I study such things and am presented with an interesting theory like yours, I must return always to the evidence at hand. I'm pretty conservative that way. I feel compelled to follow what the evidence tells us, like a detective investigating a criminal case. So in that light, I stick with conventional theories most of the time.

I do the SAME thing, kmt_sesh. It's fun to act out the role of the "detective", as you put it, and solve the clues to a mystery tale. Except this is solving a real and ancient mystery, which can be quite hard at times, and there are few clues to go by. But I know how you feel, nonetheless! ^_^

When I study such things and am presented with an interesting theory like yours, I must return always to the evidence at hand. I'm pretty conservative that way. I feel compelled to follow what the evidence tells us, like a detective investigating a criminal case. So in that light, I stick with conventional theories most of the time.

OK as a detective answer this for me. how did they load an obelisk onboard Hatshepsut’s barge

How did they get the obelisk on the barge? Well I am going to ask you something strange but all will become clear. Get a bottle of wine a length of string and a heavy object. To have your men on the dockside on solid ground and have the ability to pull the obelisk is a critical factor. So to the experiment tie string to a heavy object 3 or 4 pounds in weight will do. Hold the bottle of wine by the neck, slightly above the weight and about two feet away from it, now wrap the other end of the string around the neck of the bottle once. Pull the string towards your self and the weight will move directly towards the bottle.

What you are doing is altering the direction of pull by wrapping the string around the neck of the bottle. You can see the flare at the front of Hatshepsut’s obelisk barge; this would give you the same effect.

This flair on ancient Egyptian boats can now be explained, used as a simple method of altering the direction of pull for loading and unloading cargo. Positioned under a loading point, cargo could be hauled onto the boat. The left side flare is for lift and for lowering. The right side is for horizontal positioning from the dockside to the boat. This method of loading would ensure the cargo would be located in a central balanced position, essential if you are carrying heavy stones.

HI!!! I would like to focus your attention on something someone told me some time ago...You know, there are many theories that try to explain how Pyramids were built... Personally, I think that all these theories - if are not true at all - can be in some way explained...But there is a theory that I think to be more absurd than the others; that's to say: the bricks used to build the Pyramids should be flown and they had assumed the position they have!! RIDICULOUS!!!!!

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum